Decoding Obama's comments on war in Afghanistan: What did he really mean?
| Washington
A year after announcing 30,000 additional troops for the US-led fight in Afghanistan, President Obama offered a mixed picture of 鈥渇ragile鈥� progress and of more difficult days ahead in his annual review of the war.
Yet compared with a year ago 鈥� when Mr. Obama set the stage for the beginning of a troop withdrawal in summer 2011 鈥� the president鈥檚 message on Thursday was more focused on the conditions that will determine the pace of a drawdown over the next four years.
The shift in message is in part designed to tell the central actors in the war 鈥� the Taliban, the governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the Afghan population 鈥� that the US and its partners are not pulling out any time soon, some policy analysts say. The review also reflects the commitment the US and NATO members made earlier this month to a transfer of combat responsibilities to Afghan security forces by December of 2014.
IN PICTURES: Winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan
Moving the goal posts
鈥淭he administration has rather subtly moved the goal posts from 2011 to 2014, something it began doing about six months ago,鈥� says James Dobbins, a longtime US diplomat and Afghanistan expert now at the Rand Corp. in Arlington, Va. While 2011 had 鈥渟ome utility, particularly in domestic politics,鈥� Ambassador Dobbins adds that the administration quickly realized the date also had some costs.
鈥淚t fed the impression in the region that the US could simply be waited out,鈥� he says, 鈥渁nd that our support of the government in Afghanistan had a time limit on it.鈥�
The message of 鈥渇ragile but reversible progress鈥� also signals to Americans less supportive of the war than ever that the next six months will be critical to determining the magnitude 鈥� or mere symbolism 鈥� of the drawdown to begin in July 2011.
The early months of the year, when the Taliban鈥檚 traditionally return to offensive mode, will offer a hint of how 鈥渇ragile鈥� the security progress is, military experts say, and thus of what kind of drawdown the US can safely begin in July.
Message to Pakistan
Aside from the Afghan security conditions, the review鈥檚 assessment of 鈥渇ragile but reversible鈥� progress also applies to the engagement of the Pakistani government in tackling of safe havens from which fighters in Afghanistan operate.
Obama referred to 鈥渞egional cooperation鈥� 鈥� referring primarily to Pakistan 鈥� as one of the key pillars of the administration鈥檚 Afghanistan strategy.
The president said the US has communicated a strong message to Pakistan that 鈥渢he safe havens must be dealt with.鈥� But privately, US intelligent officials are more categorical: Additional progress in Afghanistan will be almost impossible unless Pakistan does more, and soon, about the insurgents that cross from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
鈥淧akistan, as always, remains the hardest part of this problem,鈥� says Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former CIA South Asia specialist who co-chaired Obama鈥檚 first Afghanistan-Pakistan review.
Mr. Riedel says the new strategic dialogue the US has established with Pakistan is a step in the right direction. But he adds that the 鈥渏ihadist Frankenstein鈥� that Pakistani officials helped create for their own purposes will not be easily shut down.
Obama was his most positive in describing what he called the 鈥渟ignificant progress鈥� that has been made in the 鈥渃ore鈥� American goal of 鈥渄isrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.鈥� Compared with nine years ago, when the senior Al Qaeda leadership fled Afghanistan, Obama said the senior leaders are 鈥渉unkered down鈥� and are finding it harder to recruit, to travel, to train, and to 鈥減lot and launch attacks.鈥�
Riedel says the Al Qaeda leadership has felt significant impact from US drone attacks, and he offers the example of Osama bin Laden鈥檚 top assistant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Noting that the number of anti-American 鈥渄iatribes鈥� issued by the Al Qaeda message man has dropped from one every other week to four so far this year, Riedel says, 鈥淗is operational tempo has been disrupted.鈥�
But by defining the war as at its 鈥渃ore鈥� a battle with Al Qaeda, Obama is also relegating to secondary status the counterinsurgency goal of winning Afghan 鈥渉earts and minds鈥� through better protection of civilians and improved delivery of basic services.
Whither nation-building?
In his White House statement, Obama underscored the core goal in Afghanistan 鈥� defeating Al Qaeda 鈥� by defining what it is not. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not nation-building, because it is Afghans who must build their nation.鈥�
Just a few minutes later, however, speaking from the same podium about the same review, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized the civilian component of the international effort in Afghanistan. Noting that the US alone has more than 1,000 civilian diplomats and specialists in Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton said that the 鈥渞ebuilding of Afghanistan is an international commitment.鈥�
So which is it? Dobbins says nation-building may have a bad name 鈥� thus Obama鈥檚 rejection of it 鈥� but he adds that the US will never be able to safely depart unless Afghans are able to run their country themselves.
鈥淎s a practical matter, we have to build indigenous capacity if we don鈥檛 want to stay there forever,鈥� Dobbins says. 鈥淐all that work whatever you want 鈥� but a rose is a rose.鈥�
